Effective business leaders foster tremendous success— they drive companies toward innovation, excellence, and profit through dynamic leadership. Some captains of industry hold special significance for the public in terms of legacy and overall fascination. Current and former Apple chief executives, Tim Cook and John Scully, respectively, both replaced Steve Jobs but only one has been successful (thus far).
Some doubt that current Apple CEO Tim Cook is unfit as inheritor of the company Jobs helped to create. Leadership style is the main differentiator between Cook and Jobs. Jobs was a notorious abrasive autocrat. He was the driving force of creativity for most of Apple’s products and demanded perfection from his employees. This perhaps stemmed from his competition from Bill Gates; the two were undoubtedly trail blazers for the home personal computer for mass consumption. However, the Apple Board of Directors fired Jobs in 1985 due to his temper. Still, Jobs’ skillset as a driver of innovation was unmatched — he was brought back in 1997 to save the company from near ruin, and helped to bring it back with the innovative iMac.
So what makes Tim Cook different from Jobs but just as successful? Cook is more passive leader who often allows his talented and passionate employees to shine by permitting them to give suggestions to him. Although many can attribute Cook’s more passive democratic style as a result of existing culture consecrated by Steve Jobs, both leaders expect their employees to give their best everyday. John Scully, on the other hand, set Apple up for decline.
127 our experts are availableright now
Before John Scully joined Apple, he served as the marketing vice president at Pepsi, a soft beverage company. Clearly, Scully was talented— he was the youngest to hold that position at the company, serving at the age of 30. As an expert marketer, Scully led Pepsi toward success. Under his leadership, Pepsi gained a significant market share and became more competitive with Coca-Cola. His success at Pepsi attracted Steve Jobs. He famously asked Sculley, ‘Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?’ and because of that he left Pepsi.
So what happened— why did Sculley lead Apple toward imminent decline, rather than drive innovation and thus foster success? The overarching rationale behind why Sculley was hired by Apple lay in his expertise in business and marketing. In fact, one would say Sculley exercised these skills better than Steve Jobs— a positive attribute for the Board of Directors, which already had doubts about Job’s abrasive leadership style and temper.
Although Sculley was partially responsible for Pepsi’s success, the innovation possible with soft drinks was a moot point to the endless possibilities with computers. With Pepsi you could compete with Coke and that’s it. Computers, on the other hand, have different consumers. And because Sculley decided to compete against IBM for its customers— a company unmatched in service and quality, though not innovation— Apple struggled. Eventually they had to bring back Steve Jobs four years after Sculley resigned.
What Apple needed at that time, at least from a twenty-first century perspective, was a leader who was a radical visionary— a leader like Steve Jobs. Unlike Sculley, Jobs understood what computers were and what they were going to be, and how Apple could fit into the market. Maybe Apple couldn’t match IBM’s commitment to service and even quality, but Apple could provide innovative machines for home use. Jobs understood this intimately, and acted upon it. Under his leadership, Apple soared to new heights and secured its place as one of the most valuable companies in the world. This past week, Apple became the first company to reach a valuation of over $1 Trillion dollars.
So what you can learn from Steve Jobs and Tim Cook and not from John Sculley is that you need to have knowledge for what your company makes, deeply passionate employees, and dedication to work.
